Connect
To Top

No, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie should not become full time working royals

With the recent revelations that Prince Charles and Prince Andrew were at odds over if Andrew’s daughters Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie should become full-time working royals with apartments at Kensington Palace, Royal Central’s Editor-in-Chief, Charlie Proctor wrote an opinion piece why the two young ladies should become working royals. For arguments sake, why should Prince Charles not side with his brother in having his nieces funded by the tax payer?

Most European monarchies have already streamlined their families in order to stay in favour with the public. It is often debated if Queen Elizabeth and the monarchy is even needed in the U.K as well as her commonwealth countries. While the commonwealth countries do not pay for their head of state, they do pick up the bill when a member of the Royal Family comes to visit which now, in theory, would be Beatrice and Eugenie.

The British Monarchy should only include Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, their children, Prince Charles and Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, their children and Prince Harry funded by the taxpayer through the Sovereign Grant. Any other members of the family would still, of course, be royalty but the state would not pay their expenses. 

Conversation around modernizing the monarchy is another popular topic, Prince Harry and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are wonderful at this. Taking to Twitter to announce the birth of Prince George and Princess Charlotte, Invictus tough talk videos, you name it! To keep the monarchy current, change is always needed. Unfortunately for Prince Andrew, his daughters should not be part of this.

It is not that I don’t think they are capable of the work. They both got exceptional grades at school and can prove themselves when needed but both William and Harry were prepped for these positions since the day they were born. Camilla and Kate also have gone through extensive training to take on their positions. I am sure Beatrice and Eugenie have learned a thing or two but nothing compared to the weekly meetings with Granny Prince William had as a child.

With the decision now in Queen Elizabeth’s hands, only time will tell if we will be seeing more of the York sisters.

What is your opinion on this matter? Should Beatrice and Eugenie become full time royals? Share your thoughts by commenting below:

 

  • Lucy

    Exactly. I actually heard they want to live outside of royal life and get normal jobs. They should. I love the royal family but my vote is for a slimmed down monarchy where only the direct heirs are funded. The rest should take on normal jobs.

  • Plus Harry costs the country nothing as he has an estate he inherited from his mother. His income is greater than that of his aunt and uncles combined.

    • Lee

      Uh, not really.

      • luigi pasquali

        Stay in Las Vegas, as they say.

  • Roger Srouji

    The duties of the monarchy are so big that it cannot depend on few individuals. Every Royal should assume his or her responsibility in front of the people of the kingdom even though the qualifications does not fit the standards of the Royalty because it is an obligation of serving the public once you are from the Royal family. Failure to do so will lead to a lot of criticism of the Monarchy and consequently will lead to its erosion .

    • Caroline Ellis

      What, exactly, are the “big” duties of which you speak? The Monarch’s only power is the ability to dissolve parliament. Are you referring to cutting ribbons and attending social events that are orchestrated to give the appearance that the RF is necessary for the country and commonwealth to function?

      • micmac

        You are wrong there. The Queen has exactly the same powers as does the Governor-General. She can sack governments, and break deadlocks.But according to what I read about her, the Queen prefers not to use her constitutional powers unless there is an emergency severe enough to warrant it. She also has the right to advise, encourage and warn when she meets the UK Prime Minister weekly.

  • Kenneth Hammer

    I think that they should be working royals, but part time like the Duke of Kent. He does some events every year, but no where near the number the full time working royals do. If they do do that, they should be able to be reimbursed for their expenses in doing the royal duties, but no more. I don’t think that the UK Taxpayer should have to subsidize their lives. A slimmed full time monarchy sounds good, with the others serving part time, in the areas that they are into. For example, Zara might take over a lot of the horse related stuff from her mother, when she takes a step back. I realize Zara isn’t a titled royal, but the general point applies.

  • Airforce17

    After the Queen dies, the people should move away from the Royal’s. Does Britain really need a Queen, King and the Duke and Duchess of Cornhole?? I think not!

    • robert

      The Queen is the head of state for the country. Presidents are not free, nor even cheap. Why would they want to replace the splendid monarchy with a tawdry republic?

      • Caroline Ellis

        You seem to have an idealised version of the private lives of the members of the royal family. Think back over the last 35 years and consider how tawdry the lives of many members of the RF have been. The RF is seen by many as an archaic system which serves no substantive purpose and one which is thirty years past its use-by date.

        • micmac

          That is what Hitler thought when he subverted the German Government to get control over both the Chancellorship and the Presidency of Germany by 1939. That is what made him an absolute tyrant, since he had control of both the Reichstag and the Presidency. A constitutional Monarchy depends on what is called the separation of powers, which means that Parliament attends to representing the people and legislating as needed, whilst the Queen attends to signing into law any legislation Parliament passes. I don’t think the RF is obsolete, but there are those who would like to think they are, since the RF is a better defence against tyranny than the difficulties of finding an instant replacement for a deceased President before someone else might take over.

      • Jeremy Wright

        The Republic of Ireland President is very cheap. I would gladly replace our tawdry monarchy with a Republic.

    • Caroline Ellis

      Yes, completely agree. It’s 2016, not 1620. With no substantive powers, the RF is simply “window-dressing”, with the main beneficiary being the fourth estate.

      • nmfd72

        You apparently do not know much about the Queen’s authority. Take a few minutes and look it up.

        • Caroline Ellis

          I’m Australian and I do have some idea as to the extent of the Queen’s “authority”. Apart from ceremonial duties, the only substantive authority
          the Queen has is the ability to dissolve Parliament.
          As to the idea that the Monarch is apolitical: In 1975, the Queen dismissed the Federal Government of Australia on the advice of the Governor-General. It came to light, after his death and through the release of documentation that the Governor-General of Australia had conspired with the Leader of the Opposition. Detailed documents of events surrounding the dismissal have been embargoed until 2027 (50 years after the G-G’s death), however, a request was made earlier this year to have the documents embargoed for another 50 years after 2027. As a former journalist, I am aware that a 100 year embargo on documents is most unusual; unusual enough to suggest that information contained within those documents reaches beyond the sphere of the Australian Parliament. The application to release the documents has been undertaken specifically to determine the actual timeline of the involvement of the Queen. There is a strong suggestion that the written records of the Queen’s involvement may be in conflict with the official version as detailed to the Australian public. If the Queen knew of the forthcoming events prior to the Governor-General’s request, it would be tantamount to her being involved in a conspiracy to bring down an elected government.
          Might I suggest you read up on the on the differences between an absolute and constitutional monarchy.

          • nmfd72

            As a Historian, I am well aware of the situation to which you speak. I am also very much aware of her majesty’s performance over her 64 year reign thus far. Never, not once has she intentionally interfered with the Governments of the Day or their political agendas. I can agree that there is strong evidence to suggest there was collusion on the part of the Governor-General and the leader of the Opposition to bring down the Whitlam Government, but there is nothing to suggest that the Queen was part of this outside of following through on her Governor-Generals recommendations. If anything, she was duped.

          • micmac

            Yes I agree. But no, the Queen wasn’t duped. John Kerr was acting legally, but it doesn’t mean that the Queen would have done the same as he did in his place. In UK she would have had the chance to talk Gough Whitlam around, and make him see reason, rather than force a Constitutional crisis. In Australia she couldn’t interfere without seeming to be the “absolute monarch” Catherine Ellis refers to.

          • micmac

            As a fellow Australlan, I am well aware of the difference between an absolute monarchy and a constitutional monarchy. And you are barking up the wrong tree referring to what is called The Dismissal, especially as I was one of the voters around at the time to vote in the subsequent election. There were things going on at the time that the likes of you might not be aware of, such as the shutting down of industries and the wasting of money at the time. Yes Gough Whitlam did some marvellous things, but refusing to go to an election rather than admit he was wrong, and trying to get money from some Arabian financier or other – Khashoggi? – to cover government costs weren’t his greatest moves.

            The fact is,that supply was blocked by a hostile senate, that it is illegal to try to govern Australia without supply being guaranteed, and that the Governor-General, rightly or wrongly, stepped in to break the deadlock, and to insist the election that Gough Whitlam refused to call, actually took place. Supply being blocked is a dangerous situation which leaves debts and departments, including public servants not being paid, and by that I mean not the head pooh-ba’s but the ordinary people at the bottom of the pile. Including defence personnel.

            And so we got the election. The election in which the Australian people voted Gough Whitlam out. The other fact of government is that it is jobs, jobs, and jobs all the way, and both liberal and labour govts should always say that mantra as they wake up of a morning and go to sleep at night. If they don’t fix the job situation they, too, can lose their jobs.

            And keep Elizabeth II out of it. As far as I can remember she insisted that whatever happened was Australia’s business, not hers or anyone else’s. The Governor-General does have the power to dismiss a government if it is warranted, and the Queen does have the same powers, but prefers not to use them unless it truly is an emergency. It is debatable if the Queen, in John Kerr’s place, would have done what he did. But whether he was right or wrong is a matter for Constitutional law and the High Court, if necessary.

      • micmac

        Thirty years after 1620 Oliver Cromwell was in charge of UK, and it was the British people’s choice to bring back monarchy. Much of UK’s history has been spent evolving the Westminster System of government that is in force today, not only in UK, and the other parts of the Commonwealth where the Queen is the Head of State, but also in several countries which use that system to select both their governments and presidents.

    • nmfd72

      For 168 years before the Revolutionary War the Colonists enjoyed a rather peaceful life under the crown and remained loyal to the monarch. Had Parliament and King George III recognized the jewel they had in hand without abusing it we would probably still be under the crown today, with our independence much like Canada and Australia. Unfortunately we can re-write history. I personally wished we had Queen Elizabeth II as our Head of State with her 60 years of experience and her ability as a non-political figure to unite the country.

      • Caroline Ellis

        As an Australian, I find it odd that one would consider relinquishing the independence of a having a democratically elected Head of State for a foreign Head of State. The push for an Australian Republic continues to increase as theQueen declines.

        • nmfd72

          Having the monarch as the un-elected head of state does not equate to relinquishing any independence at all, having crooked politicians does.

        • micmac

          And seeing the line-up I am totally opposed to you. Judging by the shenanigans in the USA elections I think we would be better served by having nothing to do with the so-called “democratically elected Head of State”. Who is in control in the USA house of representatives? Or its senate? And why do we hear about the president doing this and that and not the proper heads of government? Heads of state should be restricted to enacting democratically determined legislation, not telling the rest of the world what to do.

  • Carole Jackman

    I thought there was now no such thing as the civil list, it is now called ” the Sovereign grant” Prince Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, & Harry are funded by The Duchy Of Cornwall at the moment. The sovereign grant coming from The Crown estates. After saying that no I do not think the York sisters should become full time royals. Edward’s wife Sophia has already said that her children will have to make their own way, as do Ann’s children. So why are the Yorks any different.

    • Plunkitt_of_Tammany_Hall

      You are absolutely right, Carole; the Civil List was abolished several years ago. This means that the Queen and the royal family are not “funded by the taxpayer” at all; no money received from taxes goes to support the ordinary living expenses of the Queen and her family. As a result, this whole article is ignorant and wrong-headed blather.

      • Caroline Ellis

        The Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant.

    • nmfd72

      Because Andrew is an arrogant S.O.B. that’s why

  • Barry Sheard

    Vacancies at ASDA

    • micmac

      And of course there are already lines of applicants to fill the jobs. Including those people who lost their jobs in the Public service due to government cutbacks.

  • Karen119

    I agree that Beatrice and Eugenie should get real and regular jobs, earn their own money, and pay their own way. But I also think they need to lose their “Princess” titles.

    • Lee

      I think a faker like Kate Middleton should lose her title – cheated in college, used it as a stepping stone to get a meal ticket, has a dubious past and dubious family, has NEVER worked, likes to run around with no underwear, and oh, faked the births of two children. Brown eyes from blue and light green? Come on.
      Can Kate work or is she the unpopular parasite the British public is sick and tired of supporting?

      • luigi pasquali

        Lee, calm down before you have a stroke. If not, see a DOCTOR.

        • Big Moh

          What kinda Dr?

          A mental institutional Dr?

          I’d agree to that

      • micmac

        How do you mean she “cheated in college”? These are serious allegations and should be backed up with evidence or else you should drop it. How do you mean the Duchess of Cambridge had a “dubious family”? She isn’t the only one who has a mining background, nor should anyone be ashamed of being descended from those involved in an industry vital to UK’s success as a nation. And if you need to know, degrees aren’t confined to the so-called “aristocratic class”. Ordinary working class people are often quite as motivated and hard-working at university as their so-called “betters”. Are you going to traduce the doctors and nurses at St Mary’s Paddington who witnessed the births of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s two children? Or the universities of Edinburgh and St Andrews who gave Kate entry to her courses, based on her secondary school results? And what are your qualifications in genetics anyway?

  • robert

    The only royals on the civil list are the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and Princess Anne. Prince Charles’ family is maintained by the Duchy of Cornwall. Andrew works, AND he pays taxes. Kensington Palace is maintained by the Queen from her Crown Estates revenue.

    • nmfd72

      There is no more civil list, get with the program.

      • Caroline Ellis

        That’s correct; it’s now referred to as the “Sovereign Support Grant”.

  • luigi pasquali

    I’m an American and when I heard that Duchess Catherine had to curtsy and grovel to those spoiled little York sisters, I blew my top. How dare the crown force people to bow and scrape to those two. They have a hatred of commoners that defies the imagination.

    • Sabby

      Rules are rules and the Queen made them. No worries, soon enough the Duchess will be the Princess of Wales and then Queen and they will curtsy to her.

    • nmfd72

      Oh really, when was the last time you dinned together??

    • Lee

      Why should they have to grovel to a lazy, grasping, knickerless fake and former booty call who faked two pregnancies? Blowing your top for cheap yacht girl like Wasty? Come one.

      • luigi pasquali

        On second thought, you need a Doctor now.

        • micmac

          I have to agree with you.

    • micmac

      It is a matter of precedence when in public and in formal situations. Like saluting in the armed forces. There is a snideness about how the press often reports such matters which guarantee that the casual reader will fall for the spin. The fact is, that the Duchess of Cambridge, when on her own, is still a commoner, acting in her own right. But when she is with her husband, the two York girls have to curtsy – not grovel – to her, instead, since Prince William is higher up in the chain of command. It is a matter of office and respect, more than anything else. It will be interesting to see how the York Princesses and Prince Andrew would cope with Prince Charles and his consort when time takes its course with the current UK monarch.

  • nmfd72

    She better hurry up and make a decision before she goes dark and the King inherits a Royal Pain in the Ass!!

  • Carlos Dyer

    i am not adding nothing to this the Queens Word is final nothing can be added nor taken away it is as HM says it is

  • PennieP

    Can’t those two find a JOB, a man or a career and just go away?
    They are NOT wanted or needed for ANYTHING. worthless bunch…

    • micmac

      The difficulty is just what you mention. Because of who they are they might really find themselves in a quandary looking for a suitable job or career. Princess Eugenie does have a suitable job as an associate director, though many journalists whose own jobs are no more substantial, might not see her as working. If she was the cleaner in the art gallery, there would be sniggers from such journalists, and if she worked at Aldi, Tesco or Sainsbury as a checkout chick, the same journalists would be complaining she was taking a job from others who need it more. That is why Prince Charles should step in to find something useful for at least Beatrice to do which will keep her out of trouble. Unfortunately, people with dyslexia, like Beatrice, might find themselves at a disadvantage when trying to get into the Public Service, or in other occupations which demand lots of reading and writing skills.

    • Ladyhawke

      Pennie – you’re here! These are the boards Sigi and I thought might be useful instead of the other silly place. No trolls. So, when Sigi or I refer to “the other place”, this is what we’re referring to.

      • PennieP

        Great!… And trust me, I will NEVER tell your secret ( to anyone)!!!
        Finally, and safe zone to banter and even get a little silly!. I’m always delighted to read your posts ( that’s Sigi, too)..

        • Ladyhawke

          Excellent!

  • Judestrios

    For the last fifty years, grandchildren of a king that died in 1936 have been representing the Queen without controversy. There should be no reason why the reigning Queen’s own granddaughters cannot do the same. This is just Prince of Wales trying to consolidate the monarchy entirely under him and his descendants; an act of narcissism Diana, Princess of Wales knew all too well.

More in Opinion and Reviews

Royal Central is the web's most popular source for the latest news and information on the British Royal Family and the Monarchies of Europe.

Subscribe via Email

To receive the latest Royal Central posts straight to your email inbox, enter your email address below and press subscribe.

Join 1,485 other subscribers

Copyright © 2016 Royal Central, all rights reserved.